1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to computers that attach to and function integrally with desks.
2. Description of Prior Art
The personal computer has experienced tremendous growth in popularity and use over the last few years. It was once a specialty tool used mainly by data entry and data processing professionals Today, the personal computer is a common and often necessary tool for average people on the job and at home. In many offices, every employee who sits at a desk has his or her individually assigned personal computer. In many situations the computer has become as necessary as the desk itself.
Personal computers are typically designed and manufactured in box-like enclosures which can be used universally with almost any desk by placing the computer on the desk surface, along side of or beneath the desk. This practice of placing computers on or near desks has created several problems. First, the abundance of desk-top and freestanding computers, monitors, keyboards and accessories has created a cluttered appearance in many office environments. The clutter problem is compounded by the complexity of cables that are required to interconnect all of the computer devices. A second major problem is that computer devices commonly occupy a significant percentage of the desk surface area which interferes with other forms of desk work.
Several patents address these concerns by showing computer equipment stored within an office desk. Examples of prior art which reduce clutter and increase office desk work surface availability are U.S. Pat. No. 4,669,789 of Pemberton (1987), U.S. Pat. No. 4,695,104 of Lederman (1987), U.S. Pat. No. 4,735,467 of Wolters (1988), U.S. Pat. No. 4,836,623 of Holland (1989), U.S. Pat. No. 5,071,204 of Price et al. (1991), U.S. Pat. No. 5,101,736 of Bommarito et al. (1992), U.S. Pat. No. 5,242,217 of Gonnet (1993), U.S. Pat. No. 5,409,307 of Forsythe (1995), U.S. Pat. No. 5,480,224 of Ugalde (1996), U.S. Pat. No. 5,544,594 of Schairbaum (1996), U.S. Pat. No. 5,589,849 of Ditzik (1996) and U.S. Pat. No. 5,651,594 of Lechman (1997). All of these examples disclose computer desks for home or office use which effectively hide the computer devices. None of them, however, attempt to change the shape or configuration of the computer to make it fit and function optimally within an enclosure. All of these prior art examples utilize existing desk-top or tower configuration computers. In so doing, all of the inventions listed above fail to optimize the combined performance and value of the desk and the computer functioning together. The prior art examples listed above still have the following disadvantages.
(a) Cable interconnections between computer devices are concealed but not organized or simplified in any other way. The traditional, desk-top method of connecting the back panel of the computer to each other device is still used. So, even if the concealed computer configuration could be simplified by connections through a surface of the computer other than the back panel, no such attempts were made.
(b) The dimensions and shape of the computer has not been optimized to best fit the shape and ergonomic use of a desk. The prior art examples sited above are all constrained by the shape of the computer with the desk designed to fit around it. This is a disadvantage to the user of the desk who unnecissarily gives up leg room or potential drawer space to accomodate the preexisting box dimensions of a desk-top or tower computer.
(c) When the computer box is concealed, the human interface elements of the computer such as the power button, disk drive slots, CD drive slot, and LED indicator lights are commonly moved to a less convenient location for the user. Full concealment of the computer also results in full concealment of the computer interface elements. But, a desk designed to leave the interface elements easily accessible does a poor job of concealing the computer. Many of the prior art designs show the entire front surface of the computer exposed to accommodate different manufacturers which have the same approximate outside computer box dimensions but different power switch, drive and LED locations. A more desirable configuration for combining a computer with a desk would have the human interface elements positioned to meet the ergonomic needs of a person working at a desk while concealing the rest of the computer enclosure.
(d) Combination desk and computer arrangements that conceal existing desk-top or tower case computers may not achieve optimal cost efficiencies because they continue to pay for decorative design elements of the computer while at the same time trying to conceal the computer. A more desirable configuration would use low cost and functional materials, designs and manufacturing methods for the parts of the computer that are intended to be concealed anyway. An example of this value focused approach is a car radio which is decorative only at the visible user interface and is a plain, functional box where it will not be visible. Similarly, a computer design which is optimized for concealment within a desk should preferably be plain and functional everywhere except at the human interface locations where it is visible. This desired improvement would reduce cost and improve value for the customer of the combined desk and computer system.
The prior art sited in U.S. Pat. No. 5,452,950 of Crenshaw et al. (1995) goes beyond simple concealment of existing computer products within the desk. It describes a school desk with a hinged work surface that reveals a flat screen, keypad and underlying computer. The working components of the computer are assembled into the cavity of the desk. It is, therefore, different from the other examples of prior art sited previously but has several additional disadvantages.
(e) It is a school desk computer and does not address the needs of an office or home desk computer. A combination desk and computer arrangement for an office environment has different form factors and a need for permanently attached peripheral devices such as a separate mouse.
(f) The Crenshaw patent shows a lap-top configuration which typically does not provide sufficient memory, power and speed for an office environment. To meet the combined requirements of sufficient power, memory and affordability, it is important for the office desk computer to incorporate standard mother board and expansion circuit board configurations common to desk top and tower case personal computers.
(g) It is disadvantageous to build the individual computer components directly into the desk cavity as shown by the Crenshaw patent. In effect, such a configuration makes the office desk the base or chassis of the computer. This concept works fairly well in a school desk concept because such products are well suited to mass production with little differentiation required But considering the wide variety of shapes and styles of home and office desks, it would be very inefficient and thus costly to construct the individual computer components as part of the desk. Furthermore, repairing or upgrading of the computer becomes awkward when it can not be removed as one separate, self-contained box. A more desirable concept would be a mass produced, standardized and enclosed desk computer module designed for a standardized cavity within any variety of home or office desks.